Thursday, June 4, 2009

Chicago Upholds Gun Ban

The Chicago Tribune reports on the good news for gun control supporters.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld strict gun control ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill., setting the stage for a Supreme Court battle over whether the 2nd Amendment and its protection for gun owners extends to state and municipal laws.

In a 3-0 decision, the judges said they were bound by legal precedents that held the 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, in January joined a three-judge panel in New York that came to the same conclusion. Last week, activists cited that decision in calling her an "anti-gun radical."

Surprisingly, the three judges who made this ruling were not your typical liberals who oppose gun rights.

Tuesday's decision in the Chicago case was written by Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and joined by Judges Richard A. Posner and William J. Bauer. All three were Republican appointees.

What it means is eventually the Supreme Court will have to decide whether the 2nd Amendment and its protection for gun owners extends to cities and states. But meantime, what about Chicago? Does the gun ban help or hurt the situation there? Because Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the country, should guns be made more easily available? Would that help the lawful citizens protect themselves?

My opinion is no, more guns would only make matters worse. Of course there are situations in which a gun could save the day, but the problem is this. Today, criminals in Chicago, gang members and such, have to arrange for their weapons to be brought in from other states, where the gun laws are lax. If Chicago relaxed its gun restrictions, those same criminals would have easier, faster and more economical access to the weapons they need. Violence would increase, far outweighing the benefits of arming the lawful.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. You destroy your own argument.

    Using your logic, Chicago should be safer than its surrounding communities and surrounding states.

    This is certainly not the case.

    The surrounding states with their weaker gun laws are far safer than Chi-town.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You don't need to consider hypotheticals about what would happen.

    Look at the Chicago crime stats during the era of Al Capone. A time when ANYBODY could walk into a hardware store and buy full-auto machine gun, no questions asked.

    Go look it up. Crime rate was less.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought gun bans were for "public safety." Clearly gun control has failed in Chicago Mike.

    If you want to push restriction of rights you must show the efficacy of your proposals. The facts plainly show that gun control IS NOT an effective public safety measure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now that there's a split in the Appellate courts, it's going to be fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB,

    Not only must you show the efficacy of your argument, but you must show that the efficacy is so great it trumps individual rights

    Joe Huffman has asked you here, Weer'd has asked you here. Can you answer (with details)

    Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

    ReplyDelete
  6. By the way, as The Armed Schoolteacher superbly explains, the 7th Circuit did not so much rule against incorporation, as much as they ruled that it was not in their power to rule for it (excerpt):

    During oral arguments on May 26th, judges Posner, Easterbrook and Bauer made it clear that they had no interest in ruling on the question at hand. Their position was that the SCOTUS had ruled that the 2nd is not incorporated, and only the SCOTUS can overrule that decision. This is not apparently strictly true, but it's close enough to be a fig leaf for what the court wanted to do, which was keep their hands and reputations far away from any decision that the 2nd Amendment means something. Someone, they implied, will probably rule that those old cases were wrong and that the 2nd is incorporated against local and state governments . . . . . but at least it won't be them.

    This ain't over--not by a long shot (no pun intended).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob asked me for the 10th time, "Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"

    I've answered it already by saying no I can't. Maybe you missed that. Does it prove something? Maybe a Harvard History professor could answer, or an unbiased firearms scholar, if you could find one, but I can't. Does that constitute a major victory for you in our ongoing discussions? Judging by the tenacious repetition with which you've badgered me with that question, you must think it has some special significance. I frankly don't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MikeB,

    The significance is that if you can't answer that question....why are you still advocating for those laws?????????????????????????


    If it takes a professor to answer the question, find his/her work and cite it.

    The problem is, there is no evidence because gun control laws haven't made the average citizen safer. Thus your entire argument falls apart because that is why you are pushing for the laws.

    So, it seems to leave you in the position of advocating for laws that WILL NOT WORK, HAVE NOT WORKED, and WON'T IMPROVE THE LIVES OF PEOPLE.

    So, does that make you a misguided person or someone with an ulterior motive?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I've answered it already by saying no I can't. Maybe you missed that. Does it prove something? Maybe"

    You don't see the significance? Joe asks,

    Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

    Mike, the entire basis of your (and your ilk's) reasoning for gun control is that it is necessary for "public safety."

    By saying you can't answer Joe's question you admit that you have NO objective evidence whatsoever that gun control will make the average person safer.

    You can't answer the question, which shows that everything you believe about gun control is false.

    ReplyDelete